What do same-sex marriage and genetically engineered soybeans have in common? The correct answer is nothing. But big agribusiness corporations are banking on a federal judge in Hawaii to make the connection.
Hawaii is a beautiful setting for weddings and honeymoons, for both locals and visitors from all over the world. And as of December 2013, it celebrates same-sex marriages – 20 years after its State Supreme Court became the first in the nation to see a problem with denying marriage to same-sex couples.
But Hawaii has also become a test bed for multinational agribusiness corporations eager to try out new pesticides and new genetically engineered organisms, such as new variants of soybeans and corn. Many people in Hawaii are concerned about the effects of all these pesticides and genetically modified organisms. Not everyone cares. But people are asking questions, and last year, the local government on the scenic island of Kaua’i passed a law requiring major commercial agricultural companies to tell the public what pesticides and genetically modified organisms they’re using on the island.
Now lawyers for these global agribusinesses are asking a federal judge in Hawaii to throw out the Kaua’i law. And – this is the crazy part – they’re comparing it to laws against gays and lesbians.
In 1996, in a case called Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that had prevented state and local agencies from providing antidiscrimination protections to gays and lesbians. In that decision, Justice Kennedy found that the Colorado law violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which says that no state may “deny equal protection of the laws to any person.” Justice Kennedy drew on past discrimination cases to explain that the Constitution doesn’t allow laws that are motivated by “a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”
Justice Kennedy’s decision in 1996 laid the groundwork for the recent wave of decisions striking down bans on same-sex marriage. While not everyone supports same-sex marriage, a growing majority of Americans recognize that, however they personally might feel about it, the government shouldn’t discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.
So what does this have to do with global seed corporations? The correct answer is “absolutely nothing.” But these companies claim that the Kaua’i law requiring them to disclose what they’re releasing into the environment violates their rights under the equal protection clause. And, amazingly, they’re citing Romer v. Evans as precedent. But not just Romer – they’re also citing cases involving discrimination against the mentally handicapped, and children of undocumented immigrants. (The companies cite these cases at page 40 of their summary judgment memorandum, which is not posted on the internet, but is available upon request.)
People can disagree about the right way to manage genetically engineered foods and pesticides. But when the votes are cast and the law is the law, global agribusinesses shouldn’t be able to run to a judge and claim that they’ve been discriminated against. And it’s ridiculous for them to compare themselves to gays and lesbians. They’re not a minority group; they’re major international business enterprises that already enjoy too much influence over our political process.
So when you hear wedding bells, smile as you think of the happy couple and their friends and family. Not big seed companies. Because the equal protection clause is about treating each other with equality and dignity, and it cheapens and dilutes the hard-won freedoms of gay and lesbian Americans for global corporations to invoke their achievements in a case about genetically engineered soybeans.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.